54 replies to this topic

[Amppax]

This seems like it could be an interesting discussion to have. thanks in advance for all responses.

As someone whose going to be voting for the first time this fall, I'd love the imput.

[Ed Normile]

A third party vote is a vote for Obama.

ed

[Ice_nine]

As long as we have this mentality of the third-party "stealing" votes from the underdog the status quo will never change.

People need to show up and vote for what they believe in and overtime an impact can become noticeable. To me it's instant-gratification vs. delayed gratification and I believe the latter will be more effective.

[Ed Normile]

As long as we have this mentality of the third-party "stealing" votes from the underdog the status quo will never change.

People need to show up and vote for what they believe in and overtime an impact can become noticeable. To me it's instant-gratification vs. delayed gratification and I believe the latter will be more effective.

So, given you have this mentality, another term for Obama, his last without any worry of being re-elected or his legacy as being a one term candidate, and knowing that lock step liberals will never vote for a third party candidate and that the only other viable party to oust this president is the republican party, you are comfortable with another term for a president who has dismissed the constitution twice by engaging U.S. troops in wars without garnering Congressional approval, something which has never been done before? You are comfortable with a President who scoffed at the constitution by mandating citizens buy a product (healthcare) , a President who is the most liberal, most pro-death, not only abortion funding for women and teens, but euthanasia counseling and services will be provided for the elderly and terminally ill, you are happy or more enticed by "delayed gratification" keeping this President for four more years unchecked by the need to get re-elected?

Take into consideration that he has goverened more like a dictator than a representative, and we live in a republic where we appoint those who we hope to represent our views, not a President who has ruled by fiat, keep in mind Obama has signed more Presidential executive orders, governing by fiat, than all Presidents combined since he has been in office.

ed

[Nihil Obstat]

If it came down to it, I think staying home sends an even louder message than voting third party. Withdraw your consent and all that. I considered spoiling my ballot in protest at the last Canadian federal election, but then after I thought about it I decided that I didn't want to be part of the percentage that voted. By being part of the non-voting percentage the message I'm sending is that I am not going to bow down to this corrupt, violent system. Instead of protesting it within the rules they've left for me, I'm protesting it by not associating myself with it.
That was what my conscience demanded of me.

[Ice_nine]

But you're canadian bacon

[Amppax]

If it came down to it, I think staying home sends an even louder message than voting third party. Withdraw your consent and all that. I considered spoiling my ballot in protest at the last Canadian federal election, but then after I thought about it I decided that I didn't want to be part of the percentage that voted. By being part of the non-voting percentage the message I'm sending is that I am not going to bow down to this corrupt, violent system. Instead of protesting it within the rules they've left for me, I'm protesting it by not associating myself with it.
That was what my conscience demanded of me.

While I realize that my individual vote means very little, it does count, even if not much. I suppose that not voting seems more futile to me than voting. I don't know, I guess I see voting as an important duty. I've always seen not voting as a sort of apathy, and not really a move of protest. I realize that as you describe it its not, but I still can't shake that association. Also, I suppose my distaste for total anarchy (not accusing you of advocating this necessarily, but it seems to be implied) also puts me in opposition to this as an option. I suppose I should have had not voting as an option though.

Meh Summary: I don't like the idea of not voting, for various vague reasons.

[Nihil Obstat]

While I realize that my individual vote means very little, it does count, even if not much. I suppose that not voting seems more futile to me than voting. I don't know, I guess I see voting as an important duty. I've always seen not voting as a sort of apathy, and not really a move of protest. I realize that as you describe it its not, but I still can't shake that association. Also, I suppose my distaste for total anarchy (not accusing you of advocating this necessarily, but it seems to be implied) also puts me in opposition to this as an option. I suppose I should have had not voting as an option though.

Meh Summary: I don't like the idea of not voting, for various vague reasons.

Rejecting the current political system doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't replaced with anything. However, the trouble is that people who grow up in our generations simply can't imagine anything different. It takes a whole different way of thinking.

[Amppax]

Rejecting the current political system doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't replaced with anything. However, the trouble is that people who grow up in our generations simply can't imagine anything different. It takes a whole different way of thinking.

AKA the systems broken, voting perpetuates the system, therefore don't? I just don't see where this does anything more to change things than voting.

I suppose I should clarify: By not voting, you protest the system. But if a sizable population is still voting, isn't the system still being perpetuated?

Edited by Amppax, 05 February 2012 - 04:08 PM.

[eagle_eye222001]

You have to vote. Even if it is for someone who has withdrawn from the race, technically, they could still win. Seeing a large third-party bloc sends a strong message to the two big candidates that their views are off-step with America. Not voting can still send message, but it is not as strong. Think what would happen if Ron Paul got 10% of the vote! That may mean Obama wins, but that sends a STRONG message to the GOP establishment to stop running "John McCains."


This may be the first time I vote third-party. Assuming Romney wins the nomination, the only thing I trust him to do is to undo the HSS mandate. Other than that, he is Obama-Lite. He will do the same things as Obama, just over a longer period of time. If anything, I'm worried he will ruin the GOP's chance to run a good candidate in 2016. If Romney wins, that means he runs again in 2016. That means our chance to get a real good candidate in the presidency will likely be delayed by two election cycles.

Newt....too much baggage. I wish I could trust him, but I logistically can't. Plus he's another old white guy. I hate to stereotype, but appearances mean a lot. We need a new young energetic person like Rick Santorum, Marcio Rubio, or someone similar with solid values, who can take a hard swing at the growing socialism of America. Another old white guy just sends the wrong message to America.

Rick Santorum or Ron Paul! No more votes for John McCain and his clones! It is time for the NEXT GENERATION to step up and vote for who they REALLY want, and not settle for a loser candidate.


It is time to take some damage, so in 20-30 years, we have a much better America. Settling for losers will only delay a better America. It is time to vote for people who may not win, but reflect your values much better.

[eagle_eye222001]

Rejecting the current political system doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't replaced with anything. However, the trouble is that people who grow up in our generations simply can't imagine anything different. It takes a whole different way of thinking.

Isn't most of Ron Paul's support from young adults?

From my perspective, it is the young adults who realize the GOP establishment is broken, and it's time for people like Ron/Rand Paul, Marcio Rubio, and Rick Santorum......fiscal responsible people.

I take hope in the growing generation of Americans who are growing up with huge debt and realize that big government is not the solution.

[Nihil Obstat]

AKA the systems broken, voting perpetuates the system, therefore don't? I just don't see where this does anything more to change things than voting.

You're assuming that we have to play by their rules if we want to change their game. I think that's the assumption that keeps us in the mess we're in. Everything about the political establishment is directed towards maintaining power and the status quo. Not a single political bigwig actually wants to change anything. They'll talk a different game, they'll shuffle around the more visible policies a bit, but not a one of them would consider even for a second changing it. That's not how the game works.
So I refuse to play. It's rigged, it's corrupt, and it's violent. I don't want to get so close to the dirt that I get any on my hands.

Isn't most of Ron Paul's support from young adults?

I don't think Ron Paul will get the nomination. If he did and I were American I would likely vote for him.

[eagle_eye222001]

I don't think Ron Paul will get the nomination. If he did and I were American I would likely vote for him.

I agree. He very likely won't get it. But that isn't stopping me from seriously considering to vote for him. I did vote for McCain back in 08' (because Palin was on the ticket.....but then she even sold out some of her values) but was secretly glad he lost because I figured that would make our candidates better this time around.....

Wait.....that didn't work.


If I end up voting for Ron Paul as third party or write-in Rick Santorum because the GOP nomination is too damaged and untrustworthy, and Obama wins by one vote, I'll sleep with a clean conscience.

[Nihil Obstat]

I agree. He very likely won't get it. But that isn't stopping me from seriously considering to vote for him. I did vote for McCain back in 08' (because Palin was on the ticket.....but then she even sold out some of her values) but was secretly glad he lost because I figured that would make our candidates better this time around.....

Wait.....that didn't work.


If I end up voting for Ron Paul as third party or write-in Rick Santorum because the GOP nomination is too damaged and untrustworthy, and Obama wins by one vote, I'll sleep with a clean conscience.

I didn't really pay any attention to McCain and Palin after it became clear that Obama would walk away with it, but I'm willing to bet a large sum of money that her foreign policy is pretty awful.

[eagle_eye222001]

I didn't really pay any attention to McCain and Palin after it became clear that Obama would walk away with it, but I'm willing to bet a large sum of money that her foreign policy is pretty awful.

Don't remember what her foreign policy was. Likely would have been better than Obama's.

In any case, the McCain campaign turned her into a parroting idiot. She's too damaged to run again. She was best for rallying support for TEA party candidates. Although her recent support for Newt has made me lost the remaining support I had for her. She's sold what she had left.

[Nihil Obstat]

Don't remember what her foreign policy was. Likely would have been better than Obama's.

In any case, the McCain campaign turned her into a parroting idiot. She's too damaged to run again. She was best for rallying support for TEA party candidates. Although her recent support for Newt has made me lost the remaining support I had for her. She's sold what she had left.

Tough to be worse than Obama's, given how many people he's been killing.

[Amppax]

[elizabeth09]

You have to vote. Even if it is for someone who has withdrawn from the race, technically, they could still win. Seeing a large third-party bloc sends a strong message to the two big candidates that their views are off-step with America. Not voting can still send message, but it is not as strong. Think what would happen if Ron Paul got 10% of the vote! That may mean Obama wins, but that sends a STRONG message to the GOP establishment to stop running "John McCains."


This may be the first time I vote third-party. Assuming Romney wins the nomination, the only thing I trust him to do is to undo the HSS mandate. Other than that, he is Obama-Lite. He will do the same things as Obama, just over a longer period of time. If anything, I'm worried he will ruin the GOP's chance to run a good candidate in 2016. If Romney wins, that means he runs again in 2016. That means our chance to get a real good candidate in the presidency will likely be delayed by two election cycles.

Newt....too much baggage. I wish I could trust him, but I logistically can't. Plus he's another old white guy. I hate to stereotype, but appearances mean a lot. We need a new young energetic person like Rick Santorum, Marcio Rubio, or someone similar with solid values, who can take a hard swing at the growing socialism of America. Another old white guy just sends the wrong message to America.

Rick Santorum or Ron Paul! No more votes for John McCain and his clones! It is time for the NEXT GENERATION to step up and vote for who they REALLY want, and not settle for a loser candidate.


It is time to take some damage, so in 20-30 years, we have a much better America. Settling for losers will only delay a better America. It is time to vote for people who may not win, but reflect your values much better.

I must agree. If we want a better America for our children, then today`s children have it.

[qfnol31]

Is there much hope for a third party candidate without a strong third party to back him up? As long as people vote third party, the two main parties are less willing to gather those votes unless the person has a good chance of winning. I realize the reasons for voting third party, but I don't think it actually causes the party to change much. Here are my reasons why:

Take the Republican Party as an example. The Republican Party cannot choose a more extreme candidate over a more compromising one because it risks losing moderate independent voters. Thus the candidate most likely will be a compromise conservative or a more moderate person. If he's a compromise, then the party will risk losing both independent voters and those who refuse to compromise or settle. However, the number of independent voters is greater so it will try to keep them more. In doing so the more conservative voters will vote third party, which will in turn validate the party's choice to go with the more moderate person because then he has the best chance to get into the White House. Thus the next election the party will remember that it has little chance with people who are less willing to compromise and will actually move farther away from such people.

I read presidential polls every day so I see this happen, and in some ways it has been happening for years. Ron Paul has accomplished more for this cause by working within the confines of the Republican Party the last couple elections, as shown by his better polling. Until there is a strong, well-organized third party, I feel that this is a lost cause.

Those are my two cents on this. I think that unless you want to start a third party and have the resources to do so, you are actually better off in the long run by patiently changing a party from within. Loyalty is more likely to be rewarded over a long period than going somewhere else. The last several elections since 1992 have demonstrated this.

[Winchester]